IN THECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member
CC No. 191/10
Monday the 15th day of December, 2014
Petitioner : Mikhael,
S/o V.C.Mathew
Veloopra House,
Puthupally South, Kottayam.
(Adv. Jobin Mathew)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1) Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd, 102,
PHOENIX, Bund Garden Road,
Pune-411 001.
(Adv.A.K.Chinnan, Binu Mathew
&Sony Sebastian)
2) St.George Motors,
Authorised dealer for Piaggio
Vehicles Pvt.Ltd., Cement Jn,
Nattakom, Kottayam-13.
(Adv. Thomas Kurian K)
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President
The case of the complainant filed on 11/08/2010 is as follows:
The complainant on 5-01-09 purchased his Piaggio Ape Truk from the 2nd opposite party, manufactured by the 1st opposite party by paying Rs.2,40,955/-. According to the complainant the said vehicle was driven by him as self employment for the purpose of earning livelihood. The vehicle after purchase shows some serious complaints especially with regard to the gear box and it was informed to the 2nd opposite party, they had assured that after the service it will be cured. According to the complainant on journey on several occasions breakdown and he had incurred huge amount for its repairing. Thus he had sustained huge loss of income as the vehicle could not be used. According to the complainant he had purchased, on believing representation and assurance made by the 1st and 2nd opposite party that the said vehicle is of a particular standard and class and it is superior to the vehicle of the same class. Even after periodic service and repairs the vehicle does not become trouble free and the 2nd opposite party on 20-2-10 modified the gear and has taken Rs. 2380/- as value for parts and service charge. But the vehicle was break down at Ernakulam and other places while on journey. According to the complainant the defect of the vehicle is due to the manufacturing defects. Hence this complaint.
First opposite party filed version admitting the purchase of the vehicle manufactured by them from the 2nd opposite party. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant is using this vehicle for commercial purpose and has run over 18,635 Kms. The warranty period offered had also expired. The 1st opposite party is offered for sale only after conducting / passing strict quality control test. The complainant chose to purchase his vehicle after test driving the vehicle and after being fully satisfied of it’s quality and performance. According to the 1st opposite party, the complainant has not intimated the defects in any parts of the vehicle. And complainant was not regular in servicing his vehicle. The vehicle is not reported for periodic service after 4-2-10 to the authorized service center. The complainant is not carrying regular mandatory servicing of the vehicle which will obviously lead to wear and tear as well as damage of its parts. The complainant had never made any complaint regarding the gear box of his vehicle to this opposite party. The vehicle is not reported for any major complaints and the parts replaced are recommended in periodic service. And the service of the vehicle was done to the full satisfaction of the complainant by the opposite parties. The vehicle has to be serviced only at the authorized service centers of the manufacturer to enable him to avail the benefits of warranty. According to the 1st opposite party the vehicle had no problems whatsoever within the warranty period as alleged and the period of warranty has expired. The complainant did not contact the opposite parties during any alleged break downs or mention about the defects in gear box. Breakdown of the vehicle was reported on two occasions and during the service it was found that the same occurred due to misuse of the vehicle by the complainant. According to the 1st opposite party the gear box as such is subject to wear and tear depending on use of the vehicle. The vehicle requires regular servicing failing which complaints may arise. Therefore such complaints cannot be attributed as manufacturing defects or other defects. The maximum pay load capacity of the vehicle is 865 Kgs and any weight loaded over and above the said weight will cause damage to the clutch system. The vehicle has run for over 18,635 Kms as on 19-10-10. According to the 1st opposite party the operational problems in the vehicle pointed out to the opposite parties was rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. And there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
The second opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the 2nd opposite party the vehicle had some minor problems with the gear box and it was cured at the time of service on 20-2-10. And the vehicle is running smoothly without any complaints. The complainant is still using the very same ape truck for his self employment purpose on rental basis. And still carrying out the day to day service and maintenance work at the service centre of the 2nd opposite party. According to the 2nd opposite party the vehicle is not having any manufacturing defects as alleged. And 1st opposite party prayed dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
Points for determinations are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of both sides and Ext.A1 to A5 documents from the side of complainant.
Point No.1
The crux of the complaint is that the PIAGGIO APE TRUCK purchased by the complainant from 2nd opposite party manufactured by 1st opposite party is having manufacturing defects. Even after period repair vehicle is having trouble so he prays for refund of the value of the vehicle or for replacement of the vehicle. Admittedly complainant’s alleges manufacturing defects; he shall establish the same by way of expert evidence. No document has produced by the complainant to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defects. Complainant even not made any request before the Fora for appointing a technical expert to prove his contentions. In the lack of evidence of manufacturing defects we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 complaint is dismissed. No cost ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of December, 2014.
Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Hon’ble Mrs. Renu.P.Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of complainant
Ext.A1-Tax invoice No.1030 dtd 05/01/09 for Rs.2,40,955/-
Ext.A2-Cash bill no.As-1962 dt 22/6/09
Ext.A3-Cash bill no.As6373dt 16-3-10
Ext.A3-Invoice cash/credit dtd 20/2/10
Ext.A5-Series of invoice cash/credit bills ( 14 Nos)
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
